from the another-reason-to-defend-privacy-and-anonymity-online dept

Techdirt readers with long memories may recall a post back in 2011 about a 440-page report entitled "Media Piracy in Emerging Economies." As Mike wrote then, this detailed study effectively debunked the entire foundation of US attempts to impose maximalist copyright regimes on other countries. That report was edited by Joe Karaganis, who has put together another collection of articles, called "Shadow Libraries: Access to Knowledge in Global Higher Education", that are also likely to be of interest to Techdirt readers. As Karaganis writes in his introduction:

To a large extent, our work on Shadow Libraries started where Media Piracy ended, with the confirmation that the main factors underlying high rates of piracy in the developing world were the obvious ones: high prices for legal media, low incomes, and the continued diffusion of cheap copying technologies.

As everyone from [Sci-Hub's creator] Elbakyan to Elsevier knew, however, Sci-Hub's importance was not its permanence as a service but its status as a proof of concept. Its core archive of fifty million articles was freely available and its basic search and archive features easily replicated.

...

If Elbakyan's story has struck a chord, it is in part because it brings this contradiction in the academic project into sharp relief -- universalist in principle and unequal in practice. Shadow Libraries is a study of that tension in the digital era.

The rest of the 321 pages explores how that tension -- between striving for free and frictionless access to all human knowledge and the copyright industry's attempts to turn learning into a luxury product -- is playing out in eight different countries. Techdirt has covered many of the stories -- for example, those in Russia, India and Argentina. But the report fleshes out the bare facts previously reported here, and provides far more context and analysis. The detailed history of Library Genesis, a precursor to Sci-Hub in Russia, is particularly fascinating. For other countries such as South Africa, Poland, Brazil and Uruguay, the new studies offer insights into regions rarely discussed in the West, and provide good starting points for deeper understanding of those countries. As Karaganis notes, the new study is a transitional one:

catching the moment of widespread digitization of materials and related infrastructure but not yet the digitization of the wider teaching, learning, and research ecosystem, and not the stabilization of legal models and frameworks that can keep pace with the growth of higher education and the global scale of emerging knowledge communities.

Importantly, though, the underlying dynamics of sharing knowledge are the same as those driving the unauthorized distribution of media materials, discussed in the 2011 study:

this informal copy culture is shaped by high prices, low incomes, and cheap technology -- and only in very limited ways by copyright enforcement. As long as the Internet remains "open" in the sense of affording privacy and anonymity, shadow libraries, large and small, will remain powerful facts of educational life. As in the case of music and movies, we think the language of crisis serves this discussion poorly. This is an era of radical abundance of scholarship,
instructional materials, and educational opportunity. The rest is politics.

Those are points we've made here on Techdirt many times before. We are enjoying an era of unprecedented digital abundance, which the copyright industries are fighting to shut down in order to preserve their outdated business models based on scarcity. One way they try to do that is to attack the Internet's openness by striving to weaken privacy and anonymity online, regardless of the collateral harm this causes. The importance of shadow libraries in global higher education is another reason to resist that.

from the live-by-the-ip-die-by-the-ip dept

A brief review of Nike's history on matters of intellectual property will result in the impression that the company is a stalwart of IP protection. The company has been fond in the past of relying on intellectual property laws to take strong enforcement actions, even when the targets of those actions are laughably dwarfed by the company's sheer size. Like many massive athletic apparel companies, it jealously protects its trademarks and patents. And, yet, it has been found in the past to be perfectly willing to infringe on the trademark rights of others.

The company, known for developing a variety of database software, filed a lawsuit in an Oregon federal court this week, accusing Nike of copyright infringement. Both parties have had a software license agreement in place since 2001, but during an audit last year, Qwest noticed that not all products were properly licensed.

“That audit revealed that Nike had deployed Quest Software Products far in excess of the scope allowed by the parties’ SLA,” Quest writes in their complaint, filed at a federal court in Oregon.

In addition, Quest says the audit revealed that Nike was using pirated keys and cracked versions of Quest software to route around paying for the full licensing costs it would otherwise be obligated to pay. Those types of actions aren't the sort of accidental infringement we've come to expect at large companies like Nike. Instead, they constitute a willful attempt to not pay for the software in use.

Now, should your mind already be conjuring the vision of a few employees going rogue, with upper Nike management having no idea this was going on and being perfectly willing to make all of this right... naaaaaaah.

When the software company found out, it confronted Nike with the findings. However, according to the complaint, Nike refused to purchase the additional licenses that were required for its setup. This prompted Quest to go to court instead...The company requests an injunction restraining Nike from any infringing activity and demands compensation for the damages it suffered as a result. The exact height of these damages will have to be determined at trial.

Honestly, it's hard to imagine what the executives and legal team for Nike have planned for this trial. Unless Quest's audit is simply wrong -- a possibility, but not likely -- then I'm not sure what the defense of any of this would be. Given that Quest rather kindly tried to get Nike to do right by it outside of court before filing suit, any jury sitting for this trial is likely going to notice what a bad look this is for Nike. Again, that all assumes there isn't some other explanation for all of this, but one would have expected such an explanation to be presented to Quest upon contact, and yet the lawsuit was still filed.

Regardless, this is yet another instance of a company happy to wield intellectual property upon others only to be found to be violating those rights itself. You can almost set your watch to it.

from the pot-meet-kettle dept

There are some ongoing jokes of a kind that cynics like myself believe have more than a grain of truth to them. They go something like "The moment you have a person or group sanctimoniously come out violently against [X], you can pretty much set your watch to the eventuality that that same person or group will be found to have committed [X] themselves." This works in a myriad of arenas, from "family first" politicians getting caught up in affairs, to "children first" people and groups found to have abused children, up to and including matters of intellectual property. The examples of those in favor of draconian IP enforcement being found to have violated IP themselves are so legion that this entire sentence could have been constructed of nothing but hyperlinks to those past stories.

And now, it seems, we may be able to add Russia's Intellectual Property Rights Court to the list. A former judge on that court has filed a lawsuit against the court itself accusing it of wanton use of unlicensed Microsoft software.

Paragon is representing Alexander Shmuratov, who is a former Assistant Judge at the Court for Intellectual Property Rights. Shmuratov worked at the Court for several years and claims that the computers there were being operated with expired licenses.

Shmuratov himself told Kommersant that he “saw the notice of an activation failure every day when using MS Office products” in intellectual property court.

Now, it will be easy for some to simply hand-wave this away. Copyright infringement of American products in Russia is something of a national pastime, after all. And with all of the current rhetoric in the public about Russia, much of it deserved, it would be all too easy to shrug this off as a bad actor state doing bad actor things. The Russian government itself is attempting to combat the accusation by discrediting Shmuratov, who it says was fired for providing false income information as a matter of his employment. Making this all the more strange is how the Russian government has conspired with Microsoft in the past to use copyright to intimidate critics of the government.

What none of that changes is that the IP court in a major country may very well have been pirating software as it doled out punishments for the IP infringements of others. If true, that's about as purely laid bare the hypocrisy of IP maximilists as could be had. All kinds of IP infringement happen every day, and in all kinds of ways. The rules for patent, copyright, and trademark law are as convoluted as they are draconian, whereas the simple economics of digital goods practically begs for the kind of use and copying that would be called infringement. If the court overseeing Russia's IP court cases can't get this right, why should it be expected that anyone else can?

from the censoring-is-censoring dept

Well, that didn't take long. Over the past few weeks, we have been discussing yet another attempt to introduce a censorious site-blocking program to combat copyright infringement, this time in Japan. While site-blocking is unfortunately now popular in several countries, Japan's attempt at it is interesting in that the Japanese constitution specifically forbids censorship of this kind save for the need to combat very serious, typically deadly instances. What's not arguable is that Japan's constitution intended to allow for a sweeping site-blocking program to combat general copyright infringement. Despite this, and despite the fact that the Japanese government hasn't bothered to actually put any law in place that would institute site-blocking, at least one ISP decided to get a head start and began blocking access to several websites it determined to be "pirate sites." The Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp., or NTT, did this while saying the government should still get on crafting an actual law for its actions, despite the obvious unconstitutional nature of the whole enterprise.

Because of its actions, it will be NTT that will face the first legal challenge to site-blocking rather than the government, with a private citizen, who happens to be a lawyer, suing the ISP for invading his privacy in order to censor his access to the internet.

Lawyer Yuichi Nakazawa has now launched legal action against NTT, demanding that the corporation immediately ends its site-blocking operations. The complaint, filed at the Tokyo District Court, notes that the lawyer uses an Internet connection provided by NTT. Crucially, it also states that in order to block access to the sites in question, NTT would need to spy on customers’ Internet connections to find out if they’re trying to access the banned sites.

The lawyer informs TorrentFreak that the ISP’s decision prompted him into action.

“NTT’s decision was made arbitrarily on the site without any legal basis. No matter how legitimate the objective of copyright infringement is, it is very dangerous,” Nakazawa explains.

Regardless of the specific legal arguments in this suit, it's hard to imagine that NTT wouldn't have seen this coming. Operating without a legal framework to unilaterally censor parts of the internet in a country with a commanding federal legal framework hardened against this very thing was putting the ISPs neck out there, to put it mildly. Why NTT wanted to paint a legal target on its own back rather than waiting for the government and courts to sort this out at the federal level is beyond me. One has to imagine that this lawsuit will be the first of many, if NTT decides to carry on blocking websites. Japanese law is quite clear on the matter, after all.

Breaches of privacy could present a significant problem under Japanese law. The Telecommunications Business Act guarantees privacy of communications and prevents censorship, as does Article 21 of the Constitution.

“The secrecy of communications being handled by a telecommunications carrier shall not be violated,” the Telecommunications Business Act states, adding that “no communications being handled by a telecommunications carrier shall be censored.”

The Constitution is also clear, stating that “no censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.”

Now, as TorrentFreak notes, how this specific legal action is adjudicated will likely come down to the technical specifics of how NTT is doing its site-blocking. That and, of course, how Japanese courts interpret that technical implementation.

The question of whether site-blocking does indeed represent an invasion of privacy will probably come down to how the ISP implements it and how that is interpreted by the courts.

A source familiar with the situation told TF that spying on user connections is clearly a problem but the deployment of an outer network firewall rule that simply prevents traffic passing through might be viewed differently.

But what is more clear than anything else is that this lawsuit signals that the Japanese public won't simply allow ISPs to unilaterally censoring their internet access. Whatever the technical details, Japanese law would make any introduction of site-blocking a matter of deft attempts at skirting the purpose of the anti-censorship laws on the books rather than fully complying with them.

And if we've already reached the point that it's clear the government and NTT are trying to game the system rather than following the law, the public backlash is likely to be heavy.

from the start-of-stopping-trolls dept

One of the recurrent themes on Techdirt is that law itself should not become a tool for unlawful abuse. No matter how well-intentioned, if a law provides bad actors with the ability and opportunity to easily chill others' speech or otherwise lawful activity, then it is not a good law.

The CASE Act is an example of a bad law. On the surface it may seem like a good one: one of the reasons people are able to abuse the legal system to shut down those they want to silence is because getting sucked into a lawsuit, even one you might win, can be so ruinously expensive. The CASE Act is intended to provide a more economical way to resolve certain types of copyright infringement disputes, particularly those involving lower monetary value.

But one of the reasons litigation is expensive is because there are number of checks built into it to make sure that before anyone can be forced to pay damages, or be stopped from saying or doing what they were saying or doing, that the party making this demand is actually entitled to. A big problem with the CASE Act is that in exchange for the cost-savings it may offer, it gives up many of those critical checks.

In recognition of the harm removal of these checks would invite, EFF has authored a letter to the House Judiciary Committee raising the alarm on how the CASE Act would only aggravate, rather than remediate, the significant troll problem.

Per the letter, federal courts have been increasingly "reining in [trolling behavior] by demanding specific and reliable evidence of infringement—more than boilerplate allegations—before issuing subpoenas for the identity of an alleged infringer. Some federal courts have also undertaken reviews of copyright troll plaintiffs’ communications with their targets with an eye to preventing coercion and intimidation. These reforms have reduced the financial incentive for the abusive business model of copyright trolling."

But under the CASE Act, these provisions would not apply. Instead

[L]egally unsophisticated defendants—the kind most often targeted by copyright trolls—are likely to find themselves bound by the judgments of a non-judicial body in faraway Washington, D.C., with few if any avenues for appeal. The statutory damages of up to $30,000 proposed in the CASE Act, while less than the $150,000 maximum in federal court, are still a daunting amount for many people in the U.S., more than high enough to coerce Internet users into paying settlements of $2,000–$8,000. Under the Act, a plaintiff engaged in copyright trolling would not need to show any evidence of actual harm in order to recover statutory damages. And unlike in the federal courts, statutory damages could be awarded under the CASE Act even for copyrights that are not registered with the Copyright Office before the alleged infringement began. This means that copyright trolls will be able to threaten home Internet users with life-altering damages—and profit from those threats—based on works with no commercial or artistic value.

And that's not all:

Another troubling provision of the CASE Act would permit the Copyright Office to dispense with even the minimal procedural protections established in the bill for claims of $5,000 or less. These “smaller claims”—which are still at or above the largest allowed in small claims court in 21 states—could be decided by a single “Claims Officer” in a summary procedure on the slimmest of evidence, yet still produce judgments enforceable in federal court with no meaningful right of appeal.

Also:

[T] he federal courts are extremely cautious when granting default judgments, and regularly set them aside to avoid injustice to unsophisticated defendants. Nothing in the CASE Act requires the Copyright Office to show the same concern for the rights of defendants. At minimum, a requirement that small claims procedures cannot commence unless defendants affirmatively opt in to those procedures would give the Copyright Office an incentive to ensure that defendants’ procedural and substantive rights are upheld. A truly fair process will be attractive to both copyright holders and those accused of infringement.

The CASE Act appears to reflect an idealized view that the only people who sue other people for copyright infringement are those who have valid claims. But that is not the world we live in. Trolls abound, parasites eager to use the threat of litigation as a club to extract money from innocent victims. And the CASE Act, if passed, would give them a bigger weapon.

It also gives would-be censors additional tools to chill their critics through the use of a new subpoena power administered through the Copyright Office, without sufficient due process built into the system to ensure that these subpoenas are not being used as a means of unjustly stripping speakers of their right to anonymous speech.

The CASE Act also gives the Copyright Office the authority to issue subpoenas for information about Internet subscribers. The safeguards for Internet users’ privacy established in the federal courts will not apply. In fact, the bill doesn’t even require that a copyright holder state a plausible claim of copyright infringement before requesting a subpoena—a basic requirement in federal court.

EFF was joined on this letter by many other lawyers (including me) and experts who have worked to defend innocent people from unjust threats of litigation, in the hope that it can help pressure Congress not to give the green light to more of it.

from the that's-not-what-happened dept

Last week, we wrote a post on the appeals court ruling upholding the 15 month prison sentence for Eric Lundgren. Lundgren gave an interesting interview with the Verge explaining his position on all of this, while Microsoft -- feeling the heat from multiple stories criticizing its role in the prosecution -- put out a somewhat scathing blog post from VP Frank Shaw insisting everyone has this wrong, and presenting an argument that Lundgren was a low down dirty pirate who is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

It does appear that Lundgren is overstating things in the interview he gives, especially this part:

It wasn’t a money-making venture. I didn’t make any money doing it. I actually lost money doing it. The goal was to get these [to] refurbishers so they could put them in the boxes and then consumers down the road could repair the problem.

From the details in the case, it clearly was intended to be a money-making venture. Indeed, that's what Microsoft focuses on heavily in its version of the story. It highlights email evidence in the case of Lundgren emailing with his partner/co-defendant in the case where, multiple times, he talks about how they're in business together to make money (and getting frustrated when they weren't actually making money). Here's one example:

Microsoft (and some of its... rather vocal supporters...) argue that this is all proof that Lundgren is full of shit and just a common criminal pirate. But, again, this is confusing things. In our original post, we talked about the difference between the copyright, the software, the license, and the disc. And the distinctions matter a lot. A few years ago, we noted that copyright system supporters have spent decades blurring the lines between "the copyright" and "the content." This plays out in all sorts of funny ways, including whether or not selling a piece of content is considered a sale or a license. As we've pointed out in the past, copyright proponents use a sort of Schrodinger's Download setup, whereby they call it a sale or a license (and deny it's the other) depending on which benefits them more.

In this case, the situation is fairly similar. The fact that Lundgren was hoping to profit from selling convenience to refurbishing/repair shops does not, automatically, mean he broke the law. But many people seem to think that the profit motive alone proves the copyright infringement. But... used book stores are for-profit entities selling copyright-protected materials all the time (without a license from copyright holder), and no one is locking them up as criminals. That's not to say that Lundgren did the same thing as a used bookstore dealer, but merely to point out that the profit-motive alone does not prove infringement.

Here, again, part of the issue is in how stupid copyright makes everything. Lundgren was looking to make money by "competing" against Microsoft, but was doing so by providing a convenient and cheaper solution for recovery discs. But not by infringing on the copyright, but by providing a more convenient way to get the recovery discs (which still required a valid license from Microsoft). So, again, we hit up against the differences between the license, the copyright, the software, and the disc. Microsoft, like many copyright system supporters, wants to blur all four of those issues together, insist they're the same thing, and point to the profit motive and cry "pirate!"

But taking a step back and separating out the components suggests how silly this is. If Lundgren is profiting off of the convenience, but the discs are worthless without a license, then what copyright-related harm has he really done? He may have harmed Microsoft in other ways, but are those harms ones that are protected by copyright, or are they ones that society encourages in the form of competition and innovation? Microsoft claims it's the former, while Lundgren supporters argue its the latter (Lundgren now pretending he never intended to profit muddies the waters for his own argument).

Part of this, of course, is the nature of copyright. It is a monopoly. It makes those who rely on it allergic to any form of competition. So here, where you have competition in the form of convenience, but which does not lead to a "pirated" use of the software, but just a "counterfeit" physical disc that still requires a valid license, there are legitimate questions about why this type of competition is criminal?

In the end, Microsoft and its supporters insist that Lundgren's profit motive ends all discussion. He was making money off of Microsoft software -- case closed. But that's not how copyright policy is designed to work. It is, however, how Microsoft and others such as the RIAA and MPAA, have pushed everyone to believe that copyright is supposed to work. They want you to believe that the copyright and the underlying content are one and the same, and you do anything whatsoever with the underlying content is infringing -- and doing anything with the underlying content that makes money, must automatically be criminal.

It's a sad statement on the state of copyright law that people -- including multiple judges -- seem to accept that interpretation.

from the great-PR-you-have-there dept

When Blizzard decided to pretzel copyright law such that cheating in its online games constituted copyright infringement in a novel way that makes no sense, we warned that other game studios would join this insanity party and create a true judicial problem for the courts. Unfortunately for the world, we were right about that, and several other studios began claiming that such cheats broke EULAs and that this somehow resulted in copyright infringement, despite no actual copying occurring. Among those other studios was Epic, makers of the popular Fortnite game, but unique in that it managed to sweep up a 14 year old using a cheat in its lawsuits. The prospect of suing high school freshmen was likely not what EPIC had in mind with its lawsuits and, after the teen's mother responded to the court chastising the company for the lawsuit and also arguing that her son could not have agreed to the EULA as a minor, we noted what a massive PR nightmare this had become for Epic.

On top of all of this, a lawsuit against a fourteen year old simply for using a cheat for a video game is a public relations nightmare. On the other hand, Epic is in a horrible position. It would look odd to simply drop the suit against the fourteen year old because he's fourteen and still pursue the suits against the non-minor parties. Either what was done was either copyright infringement or it wasn't (it wasn't, but that's besides the point). The whole thing just looks... petty.

My assumption was honestly that Epic would run away from this lawsuit, given how horrible it would look taking on a teenager and his mom. Somewhat astonishingly, Epic did the exact opposite, served the teenager with a new version of its suit that redacted his name to his initials, and showed up in court. Neither the teen or his mother joined them and Epic asked for a default judgment. The court, however, refused to do so and instead decided to take the teen's mother's letter to the court as a request to have the case dismissed.

However, US District Court Malcolm Howard wouldn’t allow Epic to cruise to a win that easily. Instead, he ruled that the mother’s letter should be seen as a motion to dismiss the case.

“While it is true that defendant has not responded since proper service was effectuated, the letter from defendant’s mother detailing why this matter should be dismissed cannot be ignored,” Judge Howard wrote earlier this month.

Because of that, Epic again was faced with a choice. It could stop this insanity of suing a teenager for copyright infringement when no such infringement was committed, or it could respond in court to the angry, anguished plea of a teenager's mother. It chose again, unbelievably, to play the villain in this drama, and tripled down on its lawsuit. Its response mostly argues that the mom failed to make a legal claim in her letter, which, duh. It then goes on to claim that the teenager can't claim his status as a minor prevents him from signing the EULA because of all the benefits he got from signing it.

“This ‘infancy defense’ is not available to C.R,” Epic writes, pointing to jurisprudence where another court ruled that a minor can’t use the infancy defense to void contractual obligations while keeping the benefits of the same contract.

“C.R. affirmatively agreed to abide by Epic’s Terms and EULA, and ‘retained the benefits’ of the contracts he entered into with Epic. Accordingly, C.R. should not be able to ‘use the infancy defense to void [his] contractual obligations by retaining the benefits of the contract[s]’.”

I cannot stress enough how crazy this is on multiple fronts. The breaking of a EULA in this way is not copyright infringement. The claim in Epic's response is that the court should consider a teenager capable of entering a binding EULA, one which Epic theorizes cements copyright requirements, just because he played the game for which the EULA is written. And, ever present is the simple fact that Epic is going to all of these lengths to sue a fourteen year old that used a cheat in a video game. That's nearly insane enough to read like fiction, except that all of this has been done in a public court.

How any of this could possibly be worth the PR hit Epic is taking is beyond me.

from the what's-the-rush dept

You will recall that we recently discussed the odd announcement by the Japanese government that it would seek to start a site-blocking policy to prevent copyright infringement. The announcement itself was odd for several reasons. First and foremost, this exact kind of government censorship is specifically forbidden in Japan's constitution except to "avert present danger", the context for which normally applies to real-life violence, the taking of liberty, or the destruction or taking of property. To be clear, the exception has never been used for anything remotely like this. But that's not all. The announcement was also strange because pretty much everyone agrees that the government is looking to subvert its own constitution to protect the anime and manga industries, which is both almost certainly the most Japan sentence ever written and completely unnecessary given the that the anime and manga industries are both massive and growing. None of that sounds like a "present danger."

The government didn’t have to wait long for a response. The Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (NTT) announced yesterday that it will begin blocking access to sites that provide unauthorized access to copyrighted content.

“We have taken short-term emergency measures until legal systems on site-blocking are implemented,” NTT in a statement.

NTT Communications Corp., NTT Docomo Inc. and NTT Plala Inc., will block access to three sites previously identified by the government – Mangamura, AniTube! and MioMio which have a particularly large following in Japan. NTT said that it will also restrict access to other sites if requested to do so by the government. The company added that at least in the short-term, it will prevent access to the sites using DNS blocking.

If nothing else did, this sudden move by NTT ought to demonstrate to everyone in Japan just how dangerous these sorts of ham-fisted government attempts at policy are. This sort of bowing to government pressure, especially when that pressure is of an unconstitutional nature, doesn't typically find a home in democratic nations. That's all the more true when we're discussing a form of censorship. It's also more than a little jarring to watch a private sector industry carry out government aims as an "emergency" with the excuse essentially of "legislating democratically takes too long."

And, while we made this point in our original post on this topic, let's reiterate that cracking this censorious door open an inch will lead to the government barging straight through it.

To date, just three sites have been named by the government as particularly problematic but it’s now promising to set up a consultation on a further response. A bill will also be submitted to parliament to target sites that promote links to content hosted elsewhere, an activity which is not illegal under current law.

Read that last bit again and understand what it means: the Japanese government will target websites for censorship that are not breaking Japanese law. If that doesn't terrify Japan's public, then it damn well should.

Meanwhile, other ISPs in the country have taken a slightly more measured approach, stating that they will consult with experts on what to do. That's certainly better than NTT's approach, except that it still falls short of what every ISP ought to be saying: "No, this is against the law."

from the fucking-microsoft dept

This story should make you very, very angry. Last month we had the basic story of how Microsoft had helped to get a computer recycler sentenced to 15 months in jail for "counterfeiting" software that it gives away for free, and which is useless unless you have an official paid-for license from Microsoft. Let me repeat that: Microsoft helped put someone in jail for criminal infringement over software that anyone can get for free (here, go get it), and which won't function unless you've paid Microsoft their due.

At issue are Windows recovery discs. Way back when, these were the discs that usually shipped with new computers in case you needed to reinstall Windows. You still needed your license to make them work, of course. Then people realized it was wasteful to ship all that -- combined with enough broadband to make it easy enough to download and burn the files, and Microsoft then just made it easy to do that. But, that's still complex enough, and Eric Lundgren had a solution. Lundgren is not some fly-by-night pirate. He's spent years doing amazing things, recycling computers and helping them last longer. And he had an idea. It might be helpful to manufacture a bunch of these recovery discs and offer them to repair shops to help people who were unable to download the recovery discs themselves. He was being helpful.

But Microsoft insisted that he was not just infringing on their copyrights civilly, but criminally. When we left things last month, we were waiting for the 11th Circuit Appeals Court to consider Lundgren's appeal -- and astoundingly this week the judges, demonstrating near total ignorance of technology and the actual legal issues -- rejected his appeal, which means Lundgren is going to jail for over a year for trying to do some good in the world, helping people get the exact same thing that Microsoft is offering for free, and which no one could use unless they'd already paid Microsoft its tax.

Lundgren was arrested as part of a government sting when the customs officials spotted the thousands of discs he'd manufactured and just assumed they were pirated. Here's where Microsoft should have stepped in and said "this is all a mistake" and noted that Lundgren was actually doing a good thing and exactly what Microsoft should be encouraging. Instead, Microsoft sided with the US government and continues to do so to this day.

But beyond being pissed off at Microsoft, we should be pissed off at clueless judges: 11th Circuit Judges William Pryor, Beverly Martin and Lanier Anderson (average age: 66) rejected Lundgren's appeal in 8 short pages of wrongness. It is depressing that vindictive, idiotic Microsoft combined with technically clueless judges can lead to a result that puts a good man in jail for doing nothing wrong. But that's where we're at.

The key issue in the appeal was over the actual "value" of the discs that Lundgren made. He argued, reasonably, that the value is zero. Again, Microsoft gives these away for free. Prosecutors, idiotically, initially argued they were worth the full price of Windows itself ($300). Eventually, the lower court went with a $25 fee after a government "expert" said each disc was worth that much:

To arrive at this amount, the PSR relied on evidence put forward by the government that “Microsoft had a certified computer refurbisher program that made genuine authorized reinstallation discs available to computer refurbishers for about $25,” and multiplying that amount by the 28,000 discs produced.

But that's wrong. Microsoft sells discs with a license for $25 to repair shops. Again, the discs that Lundgren was offering had no license. You had to supply your own. But the judges (and the prosecutors) can't seem to grasp this simple fact.

The district court did not err in concluding the “infringement amount” in this case was $700,000. First, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the discs Lundgren created were, or appeared to a reasonably informed purchaser to be, substantially equivalent to legitimate discs containing Microsoft OS software.... That conclusion was supported by the sentencing hearing testimony, in which the government’s expert witness testified that the software on the disks created by Lundgren performed in a manner largely indistinguishable from the genuine versions created by Microsoft. While experts on both sides may have identified differences in functionality in the discs, the district court did not clearly err in finding them substantially equivalent.

Second, the district court reasonably concluded that the proper value of the infringed item was $25 per disc. The government’s expert testified that the lowest amount Microsoft charges buyers in the relevant market—the small registered computer refurbisher market—was $25 per disc. Although the defense expert testified that discs containing the relevant Microsoft OS software had little or no value when unaccompanied by a product key or license, the district court explicitly stated that it did not find that testimony to be credible. We afford deference to a district court’s credibility determinations, and here, no evidence suggests that the district court erred in concluding that the defense expert’s valuation was not worthy of credence.

Got that? No one seems to care that an expert pointed out that Lundgren's discs, sans license, are effectively worthless. They dismiss that as not credible. Again, here was a situation where Microsoft should have said something. And it didn't. It helped the prosecutors. And this week it issued this completely bullshit statement to the Washington Post:

Microsoft actively supports efforts to address e-waste and has worked with responsible e-recyclers to recycle more than 11 million kilograms of e-waste since 2006. Unlike most e-recyclers, Mr. Lundgren sought out counterfeit software which he disguised as legitimate and sold to other refurbishers. This counterfeit software exposes people who purchase recycled PCs to malware and other forms of cybercrime, which puts their security at risk and ultimately hurts the market for recycled products.

Look, that statement is pure hogwash. The software is not counterfeit. It's legit. It's the same thing that anyone can download from Microsoft for free. It didn't expose anyone to malware or cybercrime, and Microsoft knows that.

So much of this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding, driven by copyright maximalists of all stripes, including Microsoft. And it's the idea that all of the following are equivalent: a copyright, a piece of software, a license, and "intellectual property." Many people like to use all of those things indistinguishably. But they are different. The issue here is the difference between the software and the license. And Microsoft, prosecutors and the judges either do not understand this or just don't care.

The best explanation of all of this comes from Devin Coldewey over at TechCrunch who dives deep into just how fucked up this situation is. Read Coldewey's whole piece because it breaks down just how insane this ruling is piece by piece, but here's one key part:

The “infringing” item is a disc. The “infringed” item is a license. The ones confusing the two aren’t purchasers but the judges in this case, with Microsoft’s help.

“[Defendants] cannot claim that Microsoft suffered minimal pecuniary injury,” wrote the judges in the ruling affirming the previous court’s sentencing. “Microsoft lost the sale of its software as a direct consequence of the defendants’ actions.”

Microsoft does not sell discs. It sells licenses.

Lundgren did not sell licenses. He sold discs.

These are two different things with different values and different circumstances.

I don’t know how I can make this any more clear. Right now a man is going to prison for 15 months because these judges didn’t understand basic concepts of the modern software ecosystem. Fifteen months! In prison!

Coldewey also hits Microsoft hard over all of this:

Microsoft cannot claim that it was merely a victim or bystander here. It has worked with the FBI and prosecutors the whole time pursuing criminal charges for which the defendant could face years in prison. And as you can see, those charges are wildly overstated and produced a sentence far more serious than Lundgren’s actual crime warranted.

The company could at any point have changed its testimony to reflect the facts of the matter. It could have corrected the judges that the infringing and infringed items are strictly speaking completely different things, a fact it knows and understands, since it sells one for hundreds and gives the other away. It could have cautioned the prosecution that copyright law in this case produces a punishment completely out of proportion with the crime, or pursued a civil case on separate lines.

This case has been ongoing for years and Microsoft has supported it from start to finish

There are lots of reasons to hate on Microsoft, but this one is one of the most sickening examples I've seen. Anyone at Microsoft who had anything to do with this should be ashamed.

But, of course, this is the world that companies like Microsoft (and the various Hollywood entities) have pushed for for years. They blur the lines between "license" and "content" and "copyright" and then use it as far as they can push it. And who cares if someone who is actually doing good in the world has his life destroyed?

from the to-arms dept

We've discussed the various "Pirate Parties" that have sprung up around European political systems over the past few years. While the name taken by these political movements is probably unfortunate, having political interests centered around the many, many problems within copyright law and enforcement is undoubtedly good and necessary. Sadly, those parties have too often been ineffectual, often ties co-opted by standing political powers in a way that dilutes their purposes. In Sweden in particular, the past few years have seen all the worst kinds of copyright problems sprout up as though somebody had sprinkled fertilizer over the land. As this was happening, Sweden's Pirate Party had remained comparatively silent, particularly on the matter of what can only be described as a copyright troll invasion.

Well, that is set to change, with the Swedish Pirate Party finally waking up to the threat of trollish extortion letters being sent to thousands of Swedish citizens and announcing plans to fight back.

The Pirate Party describes the copyright trolling efforts as extortion. It stresses that the evidence copyright holders rely on is far from solid, something they believe the courts should take into account.

“It is a scandal that the Swedish judicial system facilitates the mafia-like methods of copyright trolls,” says Pirate Party leader Magnus Andersson. “To condone the sending of extortion letters without reasonable ground for suspicion of criminal activity is not acceptable. We demand the Justice Minister to do something about the situation with these copyright trolls!”

Petitioning the Swedish government is not the only avenue available to fight back, however. In addition to calls for reinterpretations of Swedish law that would disallow the more controversial tactics used by copyright trolls, the Pirate Party could also simply petition the EU to have that same Swedish law repealed entirely. In addition to all of that, the Pirate Party is also lending support to Banhoff, the Swedish ISP that has made a name for itself in fighting the efforts of copyright trolls viciously, even going so far as to send trolling operations its own form of settlement letters.

Regardless, it's good to see Sweden's Pirate Party finally waking up and fulfilling its stated mission of advocating for the public on copyright matters.